Just found this    after being given the website from a company to who I complained about an 0870 number.

At the top is this: ["This document was originally published by Oftel, one of the organisations replaced by Ofcom at the end of 2003. It represents Ofcom's current policy"],
whilst it says it was published by Oftel at the end of 2003, it also states that it is Ofcoms "current"policy.

Check 2.18 for more wrong info re the cost of these calls.



Also check out the maps, No's 1.2.3.4

Email OfCOM at contact@ofcom.org.uk and point out that they are wrong.

Of course it was correct in defining that one never paid more for 087 and 084 than the national and local rates of the operator to which one was connected.
So just how did the current scam start... :'(

Ofcom acknowledge at 2.24 of the same document that calls are not charged at the rates set out at 2.18, although it's no longer correct about BT rates!

wrote on Oct 12^th, 2005 at 1:10pm:

Just found this    after being given the website from a company to who I complained about an 0870 number. At the top is this: ["This document was originally published by Oftel, one of the organisations replaced by Ofcom at the end of 2003. It represents Ofcom's current policy"], whilst it says it was published by Oftel at the end of 2003, it also states that it is Ofcoms "current"policy. Check 2.18 for more wrong info re the cost of these calls. Also check out the maps, No's 1.2.3.4

I emailed Ofcom yesterday to request they amend the website, and low and behold today that website is now empty with this message on it:-

"This document was originally published by Oftel, one of the organisations replaced by Ofcom at the end of 2003.
It is currently being revised to reflect recent numbering changes and will be updated soon"

Thus proving it was inaccurate information

Thats good news and quick as well (especially for Ofcom).

You could try emailing that company again and pointing out that the document they were referring to has now been withdrawn because it was old/out of date.

Already done

When companies always point to well hidden documentation like that midleading ofcom writing (which I didn't get a chance to see) it makes you wonder how they get to know all this info in the first place.

Anyone with basic arithmatic and English skills can look at the telco company website, and find that their rates for 0870 are higher than normal geo numbers.

Yet these companies don't bother reading, yet instead find some very old information which very few people know about, and because they have been told by ofcom that it's true, it must be.

Perhaps this company that swears on ofcoms statement will go back to this link, when updated, and if it states 0870 is a premium rate number, costing much more than normal numbers, this company will not have a problem with the findings, and inform anybody else who queries the cost of their 0870 number this new information.

wrote on Oct 12^th, 2005 at 1:41pm:

Of course it was correct in defining that one never paid more for 087 and 084 than the national and local rates of the operator to which one was connected. So just how did the current scam start... :'(

Absolutely. These numbers were originally introduced to allow businesses to have an easily memorable dialing code that charged a flat (national rate) charge. However, some businesses realised that by striking a deal with BT they could raise the charges and keep some of the profits.

wrote on Oct 12^th, 2005 at 1:10pm:

Just found this    after being given the website from a company to who I complained about an 0870 number. At the top is this: ["This document was originally published by Oftel, one of the organisations replaced by Ofcom at the end of 2003. It represents Ofcom's current policy"], whilst it says it was published by Oftel at the end of 2003, it also states that it is Ofcoms "current"policy. Check 2.18 for more wrong info re the cost of these calls. Also check out the maps, No's 1.2.3.4

Rather than alerting Ofcom to their own usual quite grotesque incompetence you should instead have just alerted us so that we could have alerted all the personal finance journalists of the national newspapers while Ofcom still had egg all over its debauched and bloated corporate face.

That way Ofcom might have suffered some real penalty for pretending it cares about the public while pulling every trick in the book it can to defend the revenue scamming activities of its former working colleagues in the telecoms and broadcasting industries.

wrote on Oct 13^th, 2005 at 4:39pm:

Perhaps this company that swears on ofcoms statement will go back to this link, when updated, and if it states 0870 is a premium rate number, costing much more than normal numbers, this company will not have a problem with the findings, and inform anybody else who queries the cost of their 0870 number this new information.

You seem to have an overly charitable view of the nature of people involved in the 0870 call centre scamming industry.

They know exactly what they are up to but like the mafia after they have just had 10 people executed will pull almost every trick in the book to try to claims these people must have just have accidentally all shot themselves in the head one night.

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 1:26am:

Rather than alerting Ofcom to their own usual quite grotesque incompetence you should instead have just alerted us so that we could have alerted all the personal finance journalists of the national newspapers while Ofcom still had egg all over its debauched and bloated corporate face. That way Ofcom might have suffered some real penalty for pretending it cares about the public while pulling every trick in the book it can to defend the revenue scamming activities of its former working colleagues in the telecoms and broadcasting industries.

What's your problem with Ofcom?! Basically, they're here to help people like you and they're the ones who first suggested a consultation into the misuse of 087 and 084 numbers. You need to stop being so demanding, be a little more reasonable and stop expecting the Earth.

These issues with NGNs angers me as much as you, but I'm a little more realistic. I don't expect Ofcom to be able to change the wording of every ad straight away. It's just not reasonable.

Serial complainers like you need to have a little think about how the system is likely to work. Have alittle think about it.

Hello Mr Asaboa,

Do you know a gentleman called Mr Peacock by any chance?

And no Ofcom was not the first to take any action on this matter.  Instead I and other campaigners who have complained about these NGN numbers to BT and OFTEL from as far back as 1997 are the campaigners who have been ignored by a corrupt and incompetent regulatory system.  Ofcom put off doing anything about this matter for just as long as it possibly could so as not to upset its telecoms industry chums.

Its first consultation 2 years ago suggested there was no problem because it completely hid the consultation's existence from public view and almost no one (even me) was aware of it or responded as a result.  Then the consultation Ofcom launched in October 2004 clearly produced responses that told it what it needed to do to put things right (even BT told it what it needed to do to put things rights and BT was basically right for once) but because those were not responses convenient to the telecoms industry Ofcom launched another consultation to further delay action and to try to water down the action to be taken against the telecoms industry.

My problem with Ofcom is its stated mission in its remit from Parliament to protect the interests of citizens and consumers but its staffing from stem to stern with telecoms and broadcasting industry professionals to whom their former working colleagues still in those industries can all too easily pick up the phone to seek help.

I would suggest that as the new boy to this forum you are not in a position to make pronouncements in such arrogant and self righteous terms.  Most people here share my views of Ofcom so it must surely be doing something wrong.

Yes NGM, i looks to me as if we have an Ofcom supporter has joined us here! Of course, many of us have been campaigning back in the days when all Oftel did was to continuously pretend that Revenue Sharing was totally different to Premiums, and there was no problem!

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 7:38am:

Hello Mr Asaboa, Do you know a gentleman called Mr Peacock by any chance? And no Ofcom was not the first to take any action on this matter.  Instead I and other campaigners who have complained about these NGN numbers to BT and OFTEL from as far back as 1997 are the campaigners who have been ignored by a corrupt and incompetent regulatory system.  Ofcom put off doing anything about this matter for just as long as it possibly could so as not to upset its telecoms industry chums. Its first consultation 2 years ago suggested there was no problem because it completely hid the consultation's existence from public view and almost no one (even me) was aware of it or responded as a result.  Then the consultation Ofcom launched in October 2004 clearly produced responses that told it what it needed to do to put things right (even BT told it what it needed to do to put things rights and BT was basically right for once) but because those were not responses convenient to the telecoms industry Ofcom launched another consultation to further delay action and to try to water down the action to be taken against the telecoms industry. My problem with Ofcom is its stated mission in its remit from Parliament to protect the interests of citizens and consumers but its staffing from stem to stern with telecoms and broadcasting industry professionals to whom their former working colleagues still in those industries can all too easily pick up the phone to seek help. I would suggest that as the new boy to this forum you are not in a position to make pronouncements in such arrogant and self righteous terms.  Most people here share my views of Ofcom so it must surely be doing something wrong.

No idea who Mr Peacock is ???
This, as you correctly assert, is a "forum" as such am I not at liberty to air my views? I'm certainly not an "Ofcom supporter" but I do believe in being reasonable. And most of you are perhaps expecting too much.
You say most people share your views so "surely [it] must be doing something wrong". How enlightening that you believe the majority is always right. :) (You're wrong by the way).

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 12:47pm:

No idea who Mr Peacock is ??? This, as you correctly assert, is a "forum" as such am I not at liberty to air my views? I'm certainly not an "Ofcom supporter" but I do believe in being reasonable. And most of you are perhaps expecting too much. You say most people share your views so "surely [it] must be doing something wrong". How enlightening that you believe the majority is always right. :) (You're wrong by the way).

Of course you are quite at liberty to express your views.  We live in a democracy and also this is a democratically run web forum where posts are very rarely deleted by the moderators and threads in this section are virtually never locked.

But I realise you came to this place perhaps somewhat  new in your awareness of the whole 0845 and 0870 higher call cost issue.  You don't have as much background in this dispute as we do.  And we who have been involved for a very long time observe that the 0845 and 0870 problem has only come about due to regulatory incompetence or complicity by OFTEL (Ofcom's predecessor and from which many staff now work at Ofcom) in allowing this revenue sharing to ever take place on numbers that they OFTEL/Ofcom stupidly also allowed to be called National Rate and Local Rate calls even when this was still no longer true.

You I think have been taken in (as Ofcom naturally hope) by the fact that because they Ofcom have just published another consultation on this matter it appears to you that they they are trying to do something for us the consumers. But the reality is that they published a consultation two years ago which they hid and did not promote and when no one responded they said there was no need to do anything about 0845 and 0870.

Then they issued a consultation last year where they got a very big noise back (including BT) that 0845 and 0870 being premium priced calls was wrong and must stop very soon and after considering those views for 9 months instead of acting to stop the scam they launch a new consultation document finishing in Decemember after which they will presumably take 9 more months to reach a decision making only minimal changes (and inadequate changes in the opinion of most people here) not happening untill another one or two years after that.

So that is why I think your view may have been expressed unaware of all the facts in this matter?

Are you aware that the CEO of Ofcom, Mr Stephen Carter, is the former Chief Operating Officer of NTL for instance and that most other senior Ofcom staff (eg Mr Matt Peacock who came from AOL) have previously been working at senior level in the telecoms and broadcasting industries.  So they are not terribly likely to be impartial or unbiased in their views.

And NGM, don't you just like the outrageous confidence of this new member who states that we are "WRONG" to criticise Ofcom or any of these scams (this being implied)! So we have all been wasting our time being wrong according to this know-all who has just arrived on the scene.

Methinks there is more than a hint of Ofcom here. Perhaps this is someone specially assigned to join this forum incogneto and convince us that we are wrong with all of our accusations after all. Obviously we have so much to learn? We have misunderstood the whole scenario! It's really about doing as much for consumers as possible, to help them. Queuing and paying the Premiums with all the tricks is really to help us poor consumers, not to exploit them!

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 5:11pm:

Queuing and paying the Premiums with all the tricks is really to help us poor consumers, not to exploit them!

But of course Dorf since as Ofcom have stated in their latest consultation document these 084 and 087 numbers have in fact been responsible for the creation of many fine and valuable additional services that would not otherwise have existed.

If you cannot remember that you could not previously (before the launch of 084 and 087 numbers) telephone your bank or call a rail company for train times you are clearly suffering from selective amnesia and need to be immediately sent as fast as possible to Ofcom Re-education Camp No 3 to have this very serious memory error corrected. ;) ::)

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 5:11pm:

And NGM, don't you just like the outrageous confidence of this new member who states that we are "WRONG" to criticise Ofcom or any of these scams (this being implied)! So we have all been wasting our time being wrong according to this know-all who has just arrived on the scene. Methinks there is more than a hint of Ofcom here. Perhaps this is someone specially assigned to join this forum incogneto and convince us that we are wrong with all of our accusations after all. Obviously we have so much to learn? We have misunderstood the whole scenario! It's really about doing as much for consumers as possible, to help them. Queuing and paying the Premiums with all the tricks is really to help us poor consumers, not to exploit them!

I was only voicing an opinion. And if you think companies like Ofcom and TSDs etc look on message forums then I think you're deluded. Don't get me wrong, I think the work that people like NonGeographical Man (and others to be fair) is great and really is making a difference. But I seriously doubt Ofcom would care about a message forum.

Sorry - just to reiterate, I don't think this site is "just a message forum", but I'm just saying I don't think they give two hoots about what people say on a message forum.

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 11:11pm:

I was only voicing an opinion. And if you think companies like Ofcom and TSDs etc look on message forums then I think you're deluded. Don't get me wrong, I think the work that people like NonGeographical Man (and others to be fair) is great and really is making a difference. But I seriously doubt Ofcom would care about a message forum.

You are wrong to thing that Ofcom do not give two hoots about what is posted on this forum.  We have very clear evidence that they monitor comments made here very closely (perhaps because they have every good reason to be more than a little paranoid over the whole 0870 issue)

For instance when after the London bombings I commented that if the bombers had chosen the offices of Ofcom as their target no one would now miss them I received an immediate angry email from the Ofcom Communications Director saying this was a personal attack on his fine and upstanding colleagues, totally unacceptable etc, etc.

Also I received complaints from Mr Peacock that I had been personalising my battle against certain Ofcom staff here in an unnecessary way.  I think he must have had in mind my regular references to their Snoozy and Non Confrontational Director of Policy but also possibly suggestions that the fact the CEO and other senior Ofcom staff came from the telecoms companies potentially gave them a very direct conflict of interest in dealing fairly with major policy issues.

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 11:32pm:

You are wrong to thing that Ofcom do not give two hoots about what is posted on this forum.  We have very clear evidence that they monitor comments made here very closely (perhaps because they have every good reason to be more than a little paranoid over the whole 0870 issue) For instance when after the London bombings I commented that if the bombers had chosen the offices of Ofcom as their target no one would now miss them I received an immediate angry email from the Ofcom Communications Director saying this was a personal attack on his fine and upstanding colleagues, totally unacceptable etc, etc. Also I received complaints from Mr Peacock that I had been personalising my battle against certain Ofcom staff here in an unnecessary way.  I think he must have had in mind my regular references to their Snoozy and Non Confrontational Director of Policy but also possibly suggestions that the fact the CEO and other senior Ofcom staff came from the telecoms companies potentially gave them a very direct conflict of interest in dealing fairly with major policy issues.

That's quite interesting. I'm happy to admit that I am surprised that they do in fact monitor this website (and others like it I'm sure). It would be nice if they would take note of some of the things said on here. Having said that, I know someone who was severely injured in the 7/7 attacks so I think that what you said was totally totally out of order. Amazing to think that while we were being attacked you still found it appropriate to have a dig at Ofcom. As a Londoner who works in the City I was caught up in all the grief that week.

Anyways, I'm going off topic. From what you said in your last post I concede, it does seem as though they do monitor such sites as these.  From experience NGM I can tell you that harrassing staff will not get you any results. But reasonable discussion will. I know that tone is often lost in text so I will just say that I am not trying to be arsey at all, merely give some pointers.

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 11:32pm:

For instance when after the London bombings I commented that if the bombers had chosen the offices of Ofcom as their target no one would now miss them I received an immediate angry email from the Ofcom Communications Director saying this was a personal attack on his fine and upstanding colleagues, totally unacceptable etc, etc.

From what you've said in the above paragraph, I quite agree with Mr Peacock's email to you. To use an event such this to "make a point" and/or imply that an organisation for which you don't agree with should be blown up is completely sickening and you should be ashamed of yourself.


wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 11:54pm:

From experience NGM I can tell you that harrassing staff will not get you any results. But reasonable discussion will. I know that tone is often lost in text so I will just say that I am not trying to be arsey at all, merely give some pointers.

I quite agree personal attacks should not be made. However, I am still reeling from your personal comment that you have contempt for me. So why do you make such personal attacks that you completely deplore?

wrote on Oct 14^th, 2005 at 11:54pm:

That's quite interesting. I'm happy to admit that I am surprised that they do in fact monitor this website (and others like it I'm sure). It would be nice if they would take note of some of the things said on here.

Istn't it only right that Ofcom should keep up with this forum.   As a taxpayer one might consider it neglectful if they didn't.  

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 3:09pm:

From what you've said in the above paragraph, I quite agree with Mr Peacock's email to you. To use an event such this to "make a point" and/or imply that an organisation for which you don't agree with should be blown up is completely sickening and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I didn't say I hoped all Ofcom's staff had been blown up and killed.  I just implied that if Ocom HQ and its staff no longer existed would the general public be any worse off than before?

It was a somewhat unfortunate analogy and I did remove it at the time at Mr Peacock's request.  I only mentioned it again because the strangely named Mr Asaboa didn't believe anyone from Ofcom was reading what is posted here.

But now I am beginning to wish I hadn't mentioned this again at all.

As for Ofcom senior staff I believe it is fair to criticise some of them personally for their faillure to act early enough or drastically enough to stop the 084/7 abuse.  Also the fact that their latest 084/7 consultation suggests that these numbers have been responsible for the creation of useful value added services is surely almost beneath contempt.

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 5:21pm:

I didn't say I hoped all Ofcom's staff had been blown up and killed.  I just implied that if Ocom HQ and its staff no longer existed would the general public be any worse off than before?

But after such an event, that is wrong. It's comparable to politicians "burying bad news" when something like this happens.


Quote:

As for Ofcom senior staff I believe it is fair to criticise some of them personally for their faillure to act early enough or drastically enough to stop the 084/7 abuse. ...

I think it's fair to criticise someone's actions, but not attack them personally. There is obviously a fine line.


Quote:

Also the fact that their latest 084/7 consultation suggests that these numbers have been responsible for the creation of useful value added services is surely almost beneath contempt.

That is Ofcom's conclusion as a whole for which I do not agree because it negates to mention that many other non-value added services operate on 084/7 numbers. However, that is my opinion, and if someone wishes to come on here and say Ofcom are doing a wonderful job, I would disagree with them, and state my reasons why, but they would not be 'wrong'.

This is an important point, and why we (as a campaign group) should not be personally attacking people, but informing them and allowing them to make up their own mind.

This is the sort of thing that gives Asaboa away. " That's quite interesting. I'm happy to admit that I am surprised that they do in fact monitor this website (and others like it I'm sure)."  First "I am surprised ...." and then "they do in fact monitor this web site (and others like it I'm sure)." How can he firstly claim to be surprised, but then slip up with a statement that he is sure that they monitor it and others like it.

It is so obvious. Be sure your sins will find you out!

wrote on Oct 15^th, 2005 at 10:54pm:

This is the sort of thing that gives Asaboa away. " That's quite interesting. I'm happy to admit that I am surprised that they do in fact monitor this website (and others like it I'm sure)."  First "I am surprised ...." and then "they do in fact monitor this web site (and others like it I'm sure)." How can he firstly claim to be surprised, but then slip up with a statement that he is sure that they monitor it and others like it. It is so obvious. Be sure your sins will find you out!

Poor sentense construction more than anything. Dork, you're really funny. You're my favourite guy on here because you are so wrapped up in your  conspiracy theory that I'm the CEO of Ofcom. Gahaha!! :D Dork - sorry, Dorf - do really think that the CEO of Ofcom (or any company for that matter) wouldcome on here? If as you are saying they don't care about your pedantry complaints, why would they come on here??

Anyways, I don't want to ruin your fun, so yes I am the CEO of Ofcom. Can you call me Sir Asaboa in future please? Thanks.

Mr. Asaboa, it is not me that has at any time claimed that you are the CEO of Ofcom. It is quite clear to me that you are not of that calibre, from your spelling and the way you write. I suggested that you might be some sort of plant representing them or another with similar interests, assigned to post comments here to convince us that we have misunderstood the whole scenario.

I actually believe now that you are more likely to be someone with a vested interest in these scams continuing, some one for instance like "Loopytush"?

This revised User's Guide to Telephone Numbering has not come online yet. There is a message saying it will be ready by the end of January 2006. Why does it take Ofcom to make changes? Or is it starting from scratch?

It's a "User's guide," so I presume that it's meant for normal consumers to read and understand rather than full of loads of telecom-speak. Do they only have one wordprocessor in the office, or is it a slow typer? ::)

Dave wrote on Dec 8^th, 2005 at 5:24pm:

This revised User's Guide to Telephone Numbering has not come online yet. There is a message saying it will be ready by the end of January 2006. Why does it take Ofcom to make changes? Or is it starting from scratch?

Holidays my dear Dave.  Holidays. ::) ;)

At the salaries earned by senior Ofcom staff they can afford to go on some quite good ones to break up the boring routing of having to look at those rather nice views of the City of London from their Southwark Bridge based HQ.

Whereas we the consultees can be expected to be at their beck and call and if they decide to cut a consultation to only 2 weeks (070) or 8 weeks (various other current consultations) instead of the normal 10 weeks well then by jove they jolly well can.

You must surely realise who is king of the castle in all this. ;)

I see we're still waiting for the end of January 2006.....................  ::) ::)

See here.

Have just e-mailed OfCon asking for a copy of the updated guide.

trevord wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 2:48pm:

Have just e-mailed OfCon asking for a copy of the updated guide.

Have now received the following reply:

Quote:

Dear Trevor Thanks for your email. We are have just announced a review of Telephone Numbering. Please see below for more details: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/02/nr20060223#content then... http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/numberingplan/ <http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/numberingplan/>; and the consultation at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/ <http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/>; It's a major piece of work; much more complex I'm afraid than we envisaged when we told people, via our website, that an updated guide to numbering would be available from January 2006. So that reference on our site is out of date (and thanks for spotting it, we'll change it), but only because we decided, after a lot of research, that we would be better off conducting a full review of all UK telephone numbering rather than assume that the old Oftel plan was simply in need of a nip and tuck. The new guide should be up later in this summer, once the Review consultation is completed and the final numbering statement published. In the meantime, if you have any views on the consultation, please do take the time to respond to the team. You can do so online here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/form Regards Matt :: Matt Peacock   Director of Communications   matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk <mailto:matt.peacock@ofcom.org.uk> :: Ofcom   Riverside House   2a Southwark Bridge Road   London SE1 9HA   020 7981 3000   www.ofcom.org.uk

Well would you Adam and Eve it, the User's Guide to Telephone Numbering still hasn't been published. It's now gonna be late summer 2006, after the review of telephone numbers.  ::) ::) ::)

So Matt Peacock, the one who admitted on the radio that 0870 numbers were premium rate, is now 'Director of Communications' is he?

Always used to say in my old job that they only promoted people to get them out of the way .........

derrick wrote on Oct 12^th, 2005 at 1:10pm:

Just found this    after being given the website from a company to who I complained about an 0870 number. At the top is this: ["This document was originally published by Oftel, one of the organisations replaced by Ofcom at the end of 2003. It represents Ofcom's current policy"], whilst it says it was published by Oftel at the end of 2003, it also states that it is Ofcoms "current"policy.

Thanks to derrick for spotting this over a year ago. You guessed it, Ofcom still do not have a USER'S GUIDE TO NUMBERING! I think that "Late summer 2006" has gone, although perhaps those at Ofcom are sunning it up somewhere hot and therefore still think that it is summer.  ::)

Heinz wrote on May 11^th, 2006 at 10:01am:

So Matt Peacock, the one who admitted on the radio that 0870 numbers were premium rate, is now 'Director of Communications' is he?

He has been their Director of Communications all along ever since he joined the from AOL some time at the start of 2004 I believe.

Unfortunately though he does seem to have difficulty in communicating accurate information to the public instead of only spin based press releases that wrongly suggest no one will pay extra for 0870 after February 2008 and totally ignore Ofcom's failure to act over the 0844 and 0845 isues.

Most of the natonal press seem to have so far been hoodwinked by these deliberately misleading press releases from Ofcom.  I hope to correct that misunderstanding and to explain to the press that Ofcom is merely letting the problem transfer to 0844, 0845 and 0871 numbers in due course.

It looks as if Ofcom has given up on a "User's Guide to Numbering" as the link is now dead:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/numbers/num_user_guide

It should also be noted that it was also under the heading "Information for Telecommunications Industry".

There is a whole section, including FAQs, on London numbers beginning 3 here.  ::)

The information on this thread is typical of the ocom oftel Icstis and all the rest of the so called regulators, I am not as knowledgeable as most members that write in this forum but if my information is correct they are all funded by the telco's

How can they say that it is an independant and fair system when their wages come from the people that they are attempting to regulate.


I apologise in advance if this is inacurate but I am sick of the so called people that regulate the industry when the industry pays their rather large salaries.

Four years after being made aware that the "User's guide to telephone numbering" was no longer accurate (I'm not sure why it didn't know that this was the case), Ofcom has finally published some information on a guide to the cost of calls:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consumer/2009/08/how-much-does-a-phone-call-really-cost/

That guide is too simplistic and glosses over a number of important points. It's a start, but I am already waiting for version 2. The current version falls short.



I also note that Ofcom get a mauling in quite a few of the Numbering Review responses here:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/
especially http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/numberingreview/responses/FlextelLimited.pdf and others.

Consultation from Ofcom – Healthcare number

Firstly they say that people are unsure what to do when they need help, well in my opinion the service they are suggesting still won’t help because callers will just have an additional number to remember. If callers can’t remember 100 for the operator (and my research suggests that they can’t) what chance have they got of remembering an additional 11 didgit number for healthcare

The price of calls will be determined by the Department of Health through negotiations with communications providers, and the consultation sets out a range of pricing option. All this service will do is create another premium rate number in disguise charging people to access a public service, unless of course it is delivered on an 0800 free phone number which I doubt.

Local  Rates -  I have learned from members of this forum that the term local rate is the wrong terminology  and I agree now it has been explained to me but even Ofcom use the term (see below)
These include making calls free to the caller, 10p per call, 3p per minute or charged at local or national rates.

Just another way for the teco's to create wealth from the poorer members of the community in may eyes.

Can a survey be started and the result be sent to No. 10 Downing Street in the same way that the 0845 number for dotors was